Satirical Spoof!
I have written a short, thoroughly researched book based on years of personal experience. The book is entitled:."How To Kill Politically Correct Lice," is only one page and sentence long.
Think and Vote Conservative!
The cost of the book is only $1.00, is tax exempt and all proceeds will go to 'wounded citizens' or a euphemism for "The Little Sisters of The Poor."!
WARNING: If you purchase this book you could be subject to Obama sicking the IRS on you .
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=BNRT0P-oZfw.
Meanwhile, you can stretch your mind through education, reading books etc.
There is another way to stretch - learn how to keep from falling by improving your balance.
Therefore, reading my new book (see above) could also help Liberals and Progressives regain their sense of balance and you do not even have to be Japanese!!!!
Increased Risk of Fall AccidentBegins at Age 40By: Junji Takano
One of the main health concerns of elderly people is falling, which is often related to poor balance. In fact, many studies show that people begin to have balance problems starting at the age of 40 years. The older you get, the weaker your physical body and sensory abilities will be, which are all factors in having poor balance.In Japan , more than 7,000 people a year die from falling accidents, which already exceeds the number of traffic accidents.
In this article, we'll examine in more details the cause of falling and why you lose balance as you age.## Test Your Balance by Standing on One Leg
You can determine how good your balance is by measuring the length of time that you can stand on one leg.The following table shows the average balance time by age group in a study conducted at a Japanese health institute.
Average time with eyes open20-39 years old: 110 seconds40-49: 64 seconds50-59: 36 seconds
60-69: 25 seconds
Average time with eyes closed
20-39 years old: 12 seconds
40-49: 7 seconds
50-59: 5 seconds
60-69: less than 3 secondsIf your balance time is below average, then you'll have higher risk of falls, or slipping and tripping accidents.
In the above study, women tend to lose their balance more than men but only by a small margin (1-2%). From this study, it is also evident that there's a sudden significant decrease in the ability to maintain balance among middle-aged people (40 years and above).Please take note that the numbers stated above are only average. There are people who were able to maintain balance much longer, and there are also those who were only able to maintain their balance at much shorter time regardless of age and gender. The reason why they vary is explained further below.
## The Soles of Your Feet Have Sensors
The skins all throughout your body have significant amount of tiny pressure sensors or mechanoreceptors. Some areas have few pressure sensors, while other areas have thousands, like on the soles of your feet.
The pressure sensors on the foot soles provide information to your brain to help balance your body. As you get older, the sensors will get weaker and your foot solelose sensitivity. But there are also other factors that can lead to weaker pressure sensors.
## Poor Blood Circulation Can Disrupt the Pressure Sensors
In our study, people are almost twice as likely to be in a fall accident caused by poor blood circulation.
This can be simulated by soaking your feetinto ice cold water for about 3 minutes. Because of the cold temperature, the pressure sensors on the foot sole begin to lose sensitivity.
## Pay Attention to Your Forward-Moving Foot
If your forward-moving foot hit something, your body will be off-balance causing you to fall or trip.
Well, it's a matter of common sense to always have your eyes on path and watch where you are going. Remember the old adages - "Prevention is better than cure", "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure", "Look before you leap", etc.?
But that's not the only problem. Here are the other two major reasons why you stumble while walking.
1. Your forward-moving foot is pointed down.
If your foot is pointed down while making a step, then you are more prone to falling. To avoid this, your forefoot or toes should be flexed upwards as shown on the image below.
2. You walk like a pendulum.
The height of your step can greatly increase your risk of falling. To prevent this, your forward-moving foot must be higher off the ground (at least 5 cm) while the knee is raised high as shown on the image below.
Actually, all the mechanoreceptors located throughout your body as well as the soles of your feet are sending information to the brain that include muscle contractions and joint angles.
When this information is not transmitted well to your brain, which happens as you get older, then the movement will get weak or ineffective making it hard for you to maintain your foot higher off the ground.
## How to Prevent Yourself from a Fall, Trip, or Slip
1. Keep Your House Clean
There are a lot of things in your house that can contribute to clutters that can cause you to trip or fall. Always make sure to put away or store properly all personal belongings and other unnecessary things even if it is only a newspaper, remote control, and laundries scattered on the floor or carpet.
2. Stretch Your Feet and Ankles
You might think that your feet do not need exercise or stretching compared to other parts of your body, but in reality, feet stretching exercise can really help your feet maintain balance.
3. Keep Your House Warm and Ensure Adequate Lighting
Cold muscles and pressure sensors work less well and are less responsive to signals. A decreased temperature will also cause your muscles to have less strength and less flexible, which can lead to accidents.
Always try to keep your house warm or wear proper clothes and footwear, especially during winter. Since most falls occur indoors, make sure your house has adequate lighting.
===
The New York Times has become unworthy for the purpose of even wrapping fish. (See 1 below.)
===
Dick
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Dangerous Times: The New York Times Goes the Full Pravda
Every thoughtful person knows the NY Times peddles shameless whoppers every single day, just as Pravda did in Soviet Moscow -- "pravda" meaning "the truth" in Russian. In the good old USSR you didn't read Pravda for the truth. You read it for the daily Communist Party Line, which bore no relationship to the truth -- other than to cover it up. Then you told your friends the latest headlines, and if they laughed at the same punch lines, you knew they got the jokes, too.
Reading Pravda became an art form that allowed readers to guess who was up and who was down in the endless power struggles of the Kremlin. Today the only use for the NYT -- other than tomorrow's fish wrap -- is to see who's up in the Only Party that matters today: the Democrats and their media.
Last week the NYT celebrated Hillary and Mayor Bill "the Red" de Blasio, who actually admits he is a Communist, and still received the wholehearted support of the New York Times. When Manhattan inevitably goes the way of Detroit, the NYT will rely on the universal idiocy of its readers to blame the Republicans.
(Some Democrat apparatchik today is actually blaming ObamaCare's failures on the Republicans. Never underestimate the gullibility of liberals.)
In the last four years, it was the NYT that proclaimed the Arab Spring that never existed, after a Google Veep named Walid Ghoneim started tweeting those "spontaneous" mass demonstrations in Tahrir Square from his PC in a loft in Manhattan. It was the New York Times that gave Obama his messianic public front, in spite of annoying facts that kept cropping up.
Recently the New York Times told the world that Ayatollah Rouhani, the mass killer of 299 U.S. Marines and French soldiers in Beirut in 1981, is a peace-loving spiritual leader who deserves his own nuclear bombs to defend Iran against Israeli aggression. Then the Times big-whoppered its deluded readers that, contrary to all the evidence, al-Qaeda had nothing to do with the Benghazi terror attack three weeks before the U.S. elections -- even though Ambassador Stevens was smuggling tons of Libyan arms to al-Qaeda rebels in Syria.
The State Department now says it all comes down to the difference between "real" AQ and "lookalike" AQ. Like Bill Clinton, it all depends on what the meaning of "is" is.
Now that Obama can't run again (legally), it's Hillary who stands to lose from the truth about Benghazi, which is that we were sending tens of thousands of anti-aircraft missiles to al-Qaeda in Syria. Even our dumbest voters might wonder if that was really a good idea, and the NYT has now published two back-to-back denials that AQ had anything to do with the murder of U.S. personnel in the badlands of Libya.
Those old Pravda bolsheviki could teach the NYT a couple of lessons. Such as: if you're trying to hide the facts, don't keep Benghazi alive with two denial stories in a row. Some readers might actually wonder if the Gray Lady doth protest too much, as Shakespeare might have said. When the Ford Edsel became a punch line for late-night comedy, Ford wisely stopped advertising that crummy car. The NYT does the opposite -- reminding everybody about Obama's betrayal of our troops and diplomats at Benghazi.
This is PR suicide. But who ever thought the NYT editors had any brains? They're just Party apparatchiks.
Conservatives tend to think that our opposition is clever, when they are merely ruthless string puppets. Great power goes together with great stupidity.
Anybody who still falls for climate scare-lines after this freezing winter is either (a) terminally brainwashed or (b) stupid beyond repair. It's often hard to tell the difference.
When "all the news that's fit to print" turns into Moscow Pravda, the only way to read it is like the Pravda of old. Never think this is a newspaper. Instead, learn to decode it, the way Sigmund Freud decoded the Wiener Tagblatt (the Vienna Daily) in the Austro-Hungarian Empire around 1900: everything is a lie, and any heated denials hint at hidden truths. All you have to do is to turn NYT headlines into their opposites.
Benghazi is Hillary's weak spot. This is where John Kerry is most likely to start an anti-Hillary whisper campaign. The more Benghazi denials come out, the stronger the stop-Hillary campaign will grow in the power circles of the Democratic Party. That's how Pravda did it, and that is how the Democrats do it today.
In the absence of real news, we have to treat our phony media the way Machiavelli dealt with court rumors in Florence. Never believe a word. Instead, just ask, "Cui bono?" -- "Who benefits?" It's like Texas poker, where nobody ever shows his cards.
To get real news, there is now a wealth of sources on the web. They are worth reading -- not because they necessarily get it straight, but because they compete with each other. George Bernard Shaw once quipped that the British trial system puts two liars (lawyers) into court, and still expects the truth to emerge. That is a valid criticism. But it still helps to have a trial case argued from two plausible points of view. Competition is just as useful for web news. We may not get the full truth, but we'll get closer than any of the monopoly Party Media.
1a) The New York Times destroys Obama
By Caroline B. Glick
The New York Times just delivered a mortal blow to the Obama administration and its Middle East policy.
Call it fratricide. It was clearly unintentional.Indeed, is far from clear that the paper even realizes what it has done.
Last Saturday the Times published an 8,000 word account by David Kirkpatrick detailing the terrorist strike against the US consulate and the CIA annex in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012. In it, Kirkpatrick tore to shreds the foundations of President Barack Obama's counter-terrorism strategy and his overall policy in the Middle East.
Obama first enunciated those foundations in his June 4, 2009 speech to the Muslim world at Cairo University. Ever since, they have been the rationale behind US counter-terror strategy and US Middle East policy.
Obama's first assertion is that radical Islam is not inherently hostile to the US. As a consequence, America can appease radical Islamists. Moreover, once radical Muslims are appeased, they will become US allies, (replacing the allies the US abandons to appease the radical Muslims).
Obama's second strategic guidepost is his claim that the only Islamic group that is a bona fide terrorist organization is the faction of al Qaida directly subordinate to Osama bin Laden's successor Ayman al-Zawahiri. Only this group cannot be appeased and must be destroyed through force.
The administration has dubbed the Zawahiri faction of al Qaida "core al Qaida." And anyone who operates in the name of al Qaida, or any other group, that does not have courtroom certified operational links to Zawahiri, is not really al Qaida, and therefore, not really a terrorist group or a US enemy.
These foundations have led the US to negotiate with the Taliban in Afghanistan. They are the rationale for the US's embrace of the Muslim Brotherhood worldwide. They are the basis for Obama's allegiance to Turkey's Islamist government, and his early support for the Muslim Brotherhood dominated Syrian opposition.
They are the basis for the administration's kneejerk support for the PLO against Israel.
Obama's insistent bid to appease Iran, and so enable the mullocracy to complete its nuclear weapons program is similarly a product of his strategic assumptions. So too, the US's current diplomatic engagement of Hezbollah in Lebanon owes to the administration's conviction that any terror group not directly connected to Zawahiri is a potential US ally.
From the outset of the 2011 revolt against the regime of Muammar Qaddafi in Libya, it was clear that a significant part of the opposition was comprised of jihadists aligned if not affiliated with al Qaida. Benghazi was specifically identified by documentsseized by US forces in Iraq as a hotbed of al Qaida recruitment.
Obama and his advisors dismissed and ignored the evidence. The core of al Qaida, they claimed was not involved in the anti-Qaddafi revolt. And to the extent jihadists were fighting Qaddafi, they were doing so as allies of the US.
In other words, the two core foundations of Obama's understanding of terrorism and of the Muslim world were central to US support for the overthrow of Muammar Qaddafi.
With Kirkpatrick's report, the Times exposed the utter falsity of both.
Kirkpatrick showed the mindset of the US-supported rebels and through it, the ridiculousness of the administration's belief that you ca
n't be a terrorist if you aren't directly subordinate to Zawahiri. One US-supported Islamist militia commander recalled to him that at the outset of the anti-Qaddafi rebellion, "Teenagers came running around…[asking] 'Sheikh, sheikh, did you know al Qaida? Did you know Osama bin Laden? How do we fight?"
In the days and weeks following the September 11, 2012 attack on the US installations in Benghazi in which US Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens and four other Americans were killed, the administration claimed that the attacks were not carried out by terrorists. Rather they were the unfortunate consequence of a spontaneous protest of otherwise innocent Libyans.
According to the administration's version of events, these guileless, otherwise friendly demonstrators, who killed the US ambassador and four other Americans, were simply angered by a YouTube video of a movie trailer which jihadist clerics in Egypt had proclaimed was blasphemous.
In an attempt to appease the mob after the fact, Obama and then secretary of state Hillary Clinton were filmed in commercials run on Pakistani television apologizing for the video and siding with the mob against the movie maker, who to date is the only person the US has imprisoned following the attack. Then ambassador to the UN and current National Security Advisor Susan Rice gave multiple television interviews placing the blame for the attacks on the video.
According to Kirkpatrick's account of the assault against the US installations in Benghazi on September 11, 2012, the administration's description of the assaults was a fabrication. Far from spontaneous political protests spurred by rage at a YouTube video, the attack was premeditated. US officials spotted Libyans conducting surveillance of the consulate nearly 15 hours before the attack began.
Libyan militia warned US officials "of rising threats against Americans from extremists in Benghazi," two days before the attack.
From his account, the initial attack -- in which the consulate was first stormed -- was carried out not by a mob, but by a few dozen fighters. They were armed with assault rifles. They acted in a coordinated, professional manner with apparent awareness of US security procedures.
During the initial assault, the attackers shot down the lights around the compound, stormed the gates, and then swarmed around the security personnel that ran to get their weapons, making it impossible for them to defend the ambassador and other personnel trapped inside.
According to Kirkpatrick, after the initial attack, the organizers spurred popular rage and incited a mob assault on the consulate by spreading the rumor that the Americans had killed a local. Others members of the secondary mob, Kirkpatrick claimed were motivated by reports of the video.
This mob assault, which followed the initial attack and apparent takeover of the consulate, was part of the predetermined plan. The organizers wanted to produce chaos. As Kirkpatrick explained, "The attackers had posted sentries at Venezia Road, adjacent to the [consulate] compound, to guard their rear flank, but they let pass anyone trying to join the mayhem."
According to Kirkpatrick, the attack was perpetrated by local terrorist groups that were part of the US-backed anti-Qaddafi coalition. The people who were conducting the surveillance of the consulate 15 hours before the attack were uniformed security forces who escaped in an official car. Members of the militia tasked with defending the compound participated in the attack.
Ambassador Stevens himself, who had served as the administration's emissary to the rebels during the insurrection against Qaddafi knew personally many of the terrorists who orchestrated the attack. And until the very end, he was himself taken in by the administration's core belief that it was possible to appease al Qaida-sympathizing Islamic jihadists who were not directly affiliated with Zawahiri.
As Kirkpatrick noted, Stevens "helped shape the Obama administration's conviction that it could work with the rebels, even those previously hostile to the West, to build a friendly, democratic government."
The entire US view that local militias, regardless of their anti-American, jihadist ideologies could become US allies was predicated not merely on the belief that they could be appeased, but that they weren't terrorists because they weren't al Qaida proper.
As Kirkpatrick notes, "American intelligence efforts in Libya concentrated on the agendas of the biggest militia leaders and the handful of Libyans with suspected ties to al Qaida. The fixation on al Qaida might have distracted experts from more imminent threats."
But again, the only reason that the intelligence failed to notice the threats emanating from local US-supported terrorists is because the US counter-terrorist strategy, like its overall Middle East strategy is to seek to appease all US enemies other than the parts of al Qaida directly commanded by Ayman al-Zawahiri.
Distressingly, most of the discussion spurred by Kirkpatrick's article has ignored the devastating blow he visited on the intellectual foundations of Obama's foreign policy. Instead, the discussion has focused on his claim that there is "no evidence that al Qaida or other international terrorist group had any role in the assault," and on his assertion that the YouTube video did spur to action some of the participants in the assault.
Kirkpatrick's claim that al Qaida played no role in the attack was refuted by the Times' own reporting six weeks after the attack. It has also been refuted by Congressional and State Department investigations, by the UN and by a raft of other reporting.
His claim that the YouTube video did spur some of the attackers to action was categorically rejected last spring in sworn Congressional testimony by then deputy chief of the US mission to Libya Gregory Hicks.
Last May Hicks stated, "The YouTube video was a non-event in Libya. The video was not instigative of anything that was going on in Libya. We saw no demonstrators related to the video anywhere in Libya."
The reason the Kirkpatrick's larger message — that the reasoning behind Obama's entire counter-terrorist strategy and his overall Middle East policy is totally wrong, and deeply destructive — has been missed is because his article was written and published to whitewash the administration's deliberate mischaracterization of the events in Benghazi, not to discredit the rationale behind its Middle East policy and counter-terrorism strategy. This is why he claimed that al Qaida wasn't involved in the attack. And this is why he claimed that the YouTube video was a cause for the attack.
This much was made clear in a blog post by editorial page editor Andrew Rosenthal who alleged that the entire discourse on Benghazi is promoted by the Republicans to harm the Democrats, and Kirkpatrick's story served to weaken the Republican arguments. In Rosenthal's words, "The Republicans hope to tarnish Democratic candidates by making it seem as though Mr. Obama doesn't take al Qaida seriously."
So pathetically, in a bid to defend Obama and Clinton and the rest of the Democrats, the Times published a report that showed that Obama's laser like focus on the Zawahiri-controlled faction of al Qaida has endangered the US.
By failing to view as enemies any other terror groups -- even if they have participated in attacks against the US — and indeed, in perceiving them as potential allies, Obama has failed to defend against them. Indeed, by wooing them as future allies, Obama has empowered forces as committed as al Qaida to defeating the US.
Again, it is not at all apparent that the Times realized what it was doing. But from Israel to Egypt, to Iran to Libya to Lebanon, it is absolutely clear that Obama and his colleagues continue to implement the same dangerous, destructive agenda that defeated the US in Benghazi and will continue to cause US defeat after US defeat.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment